Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Virago" data-source="post: 32352" data-attributes="member: 2045">Artoomis:A 5-foot step does not count as combat movementThis is nowhere in the book.  Movement is movement.  The p. 117 rule actually enforces this by pointing out that a 5' step is pretty much the same as moving only 5' in a round.  It's still "combat movement" in all respects -- it's merely 5' of it....Please do not again restate your arguments as if I didn't understand them.  There's no need to restate -- your argument relies entirely on the glossary quote, at this point.Your claim that the glossary is authoritative is not strong.  Two words: shield bonus.  As another example, the partial action bonus says "you can't choose to take a partial action" when you can according to the body of the rules, "elect" to take one.  So the glossary can't be right in this case.  And anyway, you only think that the glossary is right on stun because the Sage has told you so."it has been shown that the glossary generally carries more weight than the other rules"!!!.  You mean it's been shown that the PHB writers had their heads up their rears <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Note that you had to dip into "X is more authoritative becuase it's been shown that that is what the game designers think" style of arguing which is not what you originally set out to do.If you disagree that the glossary is ignorable, then that's all you need to say.  You certainly don't have to go through the points of your argument again with more bolds and italics <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />the ONLY exception to the normal rules on rounds is that you get an extra partial actionp. 125 "A spell that takes 1 full round to cast is a full-round action, and it comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the next action."The effect of haste on full-round spells has spawned other long threads and is a shining example of how haste requires flexible interpretation of some of the more literal uses of "round" in the PHB -- and the Sage agrees on this one.I'd really like to see a strong argument presented from your side of this debate. One that has it's basis in the rules as written.This has been done, there have been plenty of interpretations of the rules as written, and as read by an intelligent person who realizes that when the rules are in conflict, they must be resolved.  You've read these arguments, and I think you understand them.  The fact is, Table 8-4 says you get the 5' step, and nothing technically applicable says that it's limited like an MEA step is.Your glossary quote isn't enough to complete the argument you like, because the literal interpretation of the PHB just doesn't work, because it's poorly written in the area of partial actions and haste.  And since there are a few other examples of the PHB self-contradiction, it's not really enough to find an argument that runs on "hey, the PHB literally implies that it works like this!"Karinsdad:Hey Virago. Thanks for taking up the good fightActually I found Artoomis's argument very interesting.  I still vaguely remember the first thread about this that I saw, two or three boards ago? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  I remember half-seriously suggesting that the 5' step rule only applied to MEAs...I'm still not sure whose side I'm on -- probably with the haste-nerfers, even though I believe that letting the extra partial action count as a mini-round is the most reasonable response.</blockquote>

Verification